estimated 2 million people and displacing price as many. the accord laid out a detailed process leading to the referendum, including a parallel vote. five years and eight months later, many of the central issues are not resolved, including the demarcation of the border, establishing a referendum commission, in determining who is eligible to vote. . the south has only about 50 kilometers of paved roads. heavily armed troops are facing off in disputed areas, and the president, who was re-elected in april, has been indicted for war crimes by the international criminal court for the government's actions in sudan's darfur region. with time running out before the referendum and the expectation that the south will vote for separation, there is a flurry of activity right now.

at the united nations last month, dozens of international leaders, including president obama, discussed how to keep peace in sudan. a security council mission has just concluded a visit, while a delegation from the u.s. holocaust museum has called for urgent action to prevent mass atrocities. a spectrum of religious leaders from sudan and africa have ramped up an international effort to ring alarm bells, as they say, meeting yesterday in new york with u.n. secretary general and warning of a ticking time bomb. the u.s. special envoy and mediator have been meeting in eeth rope ya with leaders from north and south to try to break the deadlock, but those talks broke down today. this evening, we have two people who have devoted substantial time and energy to sudan issues to help us sort through the problems and to point to possibilities for peace. i'm not going to do a lengthy introduction, because we want to hear from them. but i'll just say, and you have

longer bios in your handouts. john prendergast is an author and human rights activist who worked for peace in africa for over 25 years. he's the co-founder of the enough project, an initiative to end the genocide and crimes against humanity. among many other involvements, he was director for africa at the national security council. george clooney is a momentum award-winning actor, producer, screen writer, and director. [laughter] he's the son of an anchorman, nick clooney, and he's a strong first amendment advocate with a deep commitment to humanitarian causes, and as i think you all know, they're both just back from sudan, and also just at the end of a very long day of meetings which included president obama, several senators, and i don't know who all else.

where are i spoke to him on the phone, senator kerry, senator lugar. >> what message did you send? why don't you start, george. >> well, the first thing we wanted to say was i think we're all sort of catching up a little bit late to the idea that there's about 90 days. and there's an opportunity to prevent atrocities instead of sort mopping up the mess after they happen. i'm not a policymaker. my job is, you know, cameras tend to follow me where i go. so we say, let's bring them to south sudan and let them take pictures. but mostly what we're trying to do is -- and what we said to senator lugar and senator kerry and to speaker pelosi and certainly to the president was obviously what this is going to require is diplomacy. robust, intricate, complicated diplomacy. but it also has to be done quickly. and if we're going to avoid what we have seen happen twice before with the same players in the

north, south, and in darfur, we can't just sit back and think, well, if we just let it play out, maybe this time it will be better. it's sort of doubtful. with so many things at stake, including oil. so our position was we are going to do everything we can to help assist, including public will and some support to try and get this out enough to say that the people of this country, the people of the world are watching and aware and know that if we do nothing that there's a very good chance that hundreds of thousands of people could die, innocent people. and that was sort of our message to them, and i asked what we could do to help get that message and help them move forward. >> you've been there several times now. john, you've been engaged in sudan for a long time. it's been five years to

implement this b.p.a. why just now, and what's going to change? has there not been robust diplomacy as it were over the past few years? where did the ball get dropped? >> the ball got dropped the day that the peace agreement was signed. january 2005. a tremendous, extraordinary accomplishment of the bush administration, along with their partners from africa and europe, to secure a peace deal that everyone thought was impossible. the deal between the north and the south. after 2.5 million people died. and as we do so often, sort of the biggest mountain has been surmounted, we sort of just go off to the next thing. when that peace deal was signed and we left the sudanese to their own devices for the last 4 1/2 years, we've seen slowly, steadily ratcheting back on many of the commitments that were made, historic commitments that were made in this deal.

and so as george said, the wake-up call, for better or worse, came about two months ago in washington. and in the united nations security council, and people started saying, my god, if we don't urgently attend to this, we're going to lose that historic deal and the south will be an inferno again. >> you went in 2004 with your dad. 2005. and you've been twice now with nbc i think. >> uh-huh. i went with the u.n. before. it was a fun trip. >> how do you see the current diplomacy with president obama operating incentives to the north, the government, to improve u.s. relations, to do other kinds of things that are wanted by the north, if there's a peace deal? where does that leave, for

example, darfur? >> well, i think that darfur has to be painted into that exact same negotiation. it's not something that can just be, hey, if you just play a little nice, you're going to get some nice carrots of it. it has to be some real -- there has to be a tremendous amount of effort. in any negotiation, and that's what this is, it is a negotiation, both sides are going to have to give. there is no question about the fact that the border that both sides want is going to be somewhere that neither of them are particularly happy when they finally decide on it. these people who are allowed to vote are going to be disputed. it's never going to be where one group is happy or the other group is happy. but it's going to require negotiation. you can do this. either way, we can pick this up in five or six months when, you know, thousands and thousands if not hundreds of thousands can be killed and we can mop this mess up, or we can do everything we

can to stop before it happens. we have an actual opportunity to stop it. and that requires making some hard choices, including diplomacy, which means working with people that aren't so savory. and that's a hard thing to do. it's certainly not an easy thing politically to do. but both sides, meaning both sides of our political spectrum, are willing to sort of talk about gray areas. i think that that's the only way we're going to get to move forward. >> john, if you agree with that scenario, who can play that role? who can put on the pressure? where are the leaders to incentivize both sides? >> you used both words in the question, and i think both words are apropos. there are incentives and there are pressures that we still have at our disposal, and those are not static actors. we need to -- i mean, leverage is built. it doesn't grow on trees. it is built through serious

engageth and diplomacy and creative thinking. in this case, you have to -- in every case, you have to assess, what do they want? what is their interests? in the case of the ruling party, it's very clear. bashir has a very significant oil-sharing deal over the course of the years for him to at least get something out of the thing. he needs normalization with the united states. he doesn't want a new state in the south and the u.s. suddenly goes, you know, we'll just be good buddies with the people in the south and let's go for a regime change. it's the worst-case scenario. so you have a number of interest s that you then assess and you say, ok, if we're going to as mediate ors have an influence on the calculations of the parties at the table, we have to take into account these interests and figure out what kind of impact we can deploy. the carrots have to be

meaningful. not this agricultural program. no, you have to talk about at the end of the rainbow, is long as there's a resolution in darfur and the south, as george was saying, you're going to get this. and it's going to be significant. we're normalizing relations. all the human rights purists are going to be sickened by the fact, including us, but you swallow it. because peace is more important than anything. peace with some level of accountability hanging over people's heads. but then you have on this other side of the fence, you got to be ready to deploy sticks. as some of the people on our trips call them, clubs not sticks, because at this point, little two sticks won't mean anything to these guys. we've got to go after assets in a significant way. a lot of money has been made through this, and we've got to be looking at a series of escalating consequences that would occur for any party, no matter who it is, that would be

willing to plunge the north and south back to war. >> as a longtime human rights advocate, what are you willing to give up -- sudanese have been saying to me lately, we're worried, what has happened to don, the former leader of the southern, political military movement. what happened to his vision of a democratic sudan? and what, given the positive noises that have come out from some u.s. negotiators about the domestic indication plans that can north has announced for darfur. what are you willing to give up to get peace? >> at the end of the day, perfection is the enemy, i think. what the vision of the comprehensive peace agreement that they negotiated with a lot of help from the united states and africa, the vision was, at least from dur rang's side, was that there would be this

country, sudan, that would transform itself democratically, through a sharing of wealth and power. none of that happened during the last 4 1/2 years of the imp lementation of this deal. the regime, the authorities had the chance, and this was from the books on to -- transformed into the peace agreement. let's make unity attractive. egyptians and saw dis-- everybody said, this is the strategy we want the world to surf sue. -- pursue. i'm sure everybody knows him. he's an esteemed senior diplomat in the national community. and this idea that the democratic transformation can occur in sudan, but the sudanese authorities are having none of it, it's in this autocratic state. they will do everything they can to maintain power by any means necessary.

so the southerners are like, what do you want us to do? we're gone. and people from darfur, now they've had seven years of fighting, and you've got now some voices where it's three, four years ago. no person from darfur was talking about self-determine nation. the state and government has ruled so autocraticly and so exclusionaryly -- i don't think that word is allowed on the c.f.r. [laughter] but the reality is that has been very, very clear. we would love to see democratic resolution here in sudan, but as they say to the sudanese, of course we want to build all we can into the peace process that would unfold under u.s. offices, or at least with u.s. involvement pushing for the windows that you can of opportunity for democktyization.

>> the general in washington last week, who was a need negotiator, and kenya's envoy. it was highly acclaimed for having held everybody's feet to the fire, both sides in sudan and the international community. but he expressed lots of concern when he was here last week. i mean, he said that they can account for the oil revenue coming in, that there's no political will that he can discern on either side to deal with any of the outstanding issues. and that the south has no capacity to deal with anything else. >> it's further along than it was three years ago, the south. they really had made some moves. >> how so? can we be specific? >> they've gotten to the point -- when we met with the u.n., the people that we met with in the u.n., some of the people that i've seen there years ago, they're setting up -- you got to remember that you have to find a way -- there's banking that has

to work. there's roads, there's infrastructure that has to be built. there's a lot of that. you're seeing big sides of it. even when we saw roads being built -- >> basic government. basic administration structures. >> and they have each -- it's intimately better than it was. when we were there last time, it was in real shambles. it's still going to be a herculean task to try to get an election off. it's going to be a big deal and it's going to be very hard. every single day we wait, it's going to be harder. the truth is this. what we saw also was a very resolute people. we saw people who have for generations been enslaved and sold and tortured and been murdered and raped who in 2005 won the opportunity, won peace and won the opportunity to vote for their own independence, and january 9, they are going to

vote for their independence, and they are willing to die for it. and that was to a man and woman there. so if we underestimate how strongly they feel about this, then we're going to be doing a great disservice to that region, because there is going to be a very strong reaction. >> and the vote can the voting be pulled off? can it happen? >> yeah. the people we met with who are going to be having to pull this minor mirkl off, that there's still time. it's not going to be the technically perfect election that people would want to see. >> are there adds? >> all that stuff is being produced. it will then be shipped -- i mean, the word herculean may be an understatement. i mean, they just had an

election in april. it's not like this is new territory. they went through this process. part of why so many millions of dollars were invested in april, even though everybody says it's not going to be a free election, is because they want to start to oil the machinery that will be required for the january referendum. you got to give people some credit for putting a lot of -- investing a lot of time and effort into this, the united nations, and other governments that have done a lot of work on this. it doesn't mean that we're starting from zero. there is actually an infrastructure in place. the largest peace-keeping force in the world. it's going to be deployed to get the materials out there and will it happen on january 9 perfectly? well, flip a coin. but i do think that there's a chance. and as long as there's a chance, we got to do everything we can to make it happen. >> let's just say that it does. what happens on january 10? and as you know, the religious community was very instrumental in helping the bush

administration begin to take action in sudan, begin to pay attention. now the religious community from sudan and from africa are engaged in a very vigorous international campaign. they're calling it ringing the alarm bells. they're talking about the ticking time bomb. a delegation is in new york now. they met with the secretary of the u.n. yesterday. they are coming to washington next week. and they are saying that what faces them in sudan is a kind of rwanda-like moment. they're saying what all of nuss the international community are dealing with is the chance to know before something happens that it's imminent and that it can be stopped, unlycra wanda, they say we know this win is coming. so do you agree with that? is it that dire? what happens on january 10? >> it doesn't matter where i agree or not. actually secretary clinton who

called it a ticking time bomb. the president has weighed in on the exact same way. the sigh yea said this is the next place where the greatest place of possibility of atrocities including and up to a genocide. it is a looming threat. and if it's 75%, if it's 50%, and we didn't make every effort possible to avoid it, then, again, we've done a great disser vis. what happens january 10? look, i was at the darfur rally, which, by the way, we were late to. it's an important thing you said, which is, you know, we were late to the congresso. we were late to the north-south. we were late to darfur. we were late to rwanda. we have an opportunity to be ahead of this. one way or another, we have an opportunity to be ahead of it. if we don't do everything we can politically, diplomatically to try to stop it, what happens after the rally in washington and everybody, even though it was way late. everybody felt great. we all joined arms and everybody marched home. darfur is done.

we fixed it. the truth is it wasn't. and what is required is sustained, constant work. very hard to do. it's hard to do in this day and age. where we all join hands to help haiti for a week or two, or pakistan for a week or two, and then we're on to the next news story, and the next news cycle. it's a very hard thing. it requires all of us, and all the people in the media. and all the people who actually feel a responsibility to do more than just the headlines. and it's a hard thing to sustain. >> one of the things the church leaders are trying to call attention to is the vulnerability of the million and a half or so displaced people. did you discuss this on you trip? >> it's going to be a big problem. think about it like this.

you don't really know where the border is yet. there's going to be some dispute over all of that. then you've got, depending on how the north decides to count heads, if it's helpful, they have 500,000 south sudanese in the north, or they have five million, as the vote is coming up, they have five million. it's probably a million, million and a half. and they're not going to come down south to vote. they're not going to make it. it's a long way. and they're going to face a lot of intimidation in voting. so, again, this is -- incredible complex issues. we talked to their president about that. he felt that that wouldn't be decisive in any way. but again, it's a problem until we fix it. i mean, that's the great thing about not just americans.

it's the great thing about what we're able to do now is diplomacy. at the end of every war, you still -- it's still applematics. you still have to sign something. >> do you think the congress is ready to do that? >> i think they are now. i think they have been for about -- for the last couple months. i think that what happened was a couple of months ago, they were -- listen, there's a lot going on in the world. they've got two wars to deal with, an economy, and plenty of issues in an election. all those kind of issues take up a lot of space. but i think somewhere around two months ago or so, everybody looked around and said, you know, wait a minute, what's going on. and you can really feel the change. you could feel it almost immediately. we've been planning this trip for about 2 1/2, three months. when we first started talking about it, it was a vacuum. a vacuum is a very -- bashir really likes a vacuum.

vacuums are good for him. he gets things done. so we need to turn some lights on and make it a little harder. >> it was really remarkable today to listen to the president of the united states have such a command over the intricacies of the negotiations process, now very heartening to us to see how engaged he is, how engaged his administration is. it's very different than it was two or three months ago, as george was saying. it's late, but it's not too late. and there's not only an understanding, an intellectual comp rehence, but a real resolve on the part of the president and each one of the members of congress that we spoke with. i mean, there's a real clear agreement that we have to do much more than what we're doing now, willingness to do much more. but a curiosity or a searching for what exactly would make a difference, and that's part of what we're doing, not only raising the alarm bells, but

throwing out some ideas right now that might actually help move the process along. >> there's a whole argument that you will always hear. you know, which is why the united states and why sudan and why -- we're there. we spend almost $1 billion a year there anyway. this is something that requires no money and no american lives, right now. so we can do it now, or we can mop it up. we can triage this afterwards. so to us, it seems like our job is to sort of just yell it. we were in these huts we kept staying in. >> we were roommates, by the way. >> we were roommates. [laughter] snores! [laughter] >> he does other things. [laughter] i don't know what that meant. i just said it. i'm sorry. i threw you under the bus.

>> that was cold! -- i was cold. and lonely. [laughter] i was actually the council on foreign relations. i'm proud to be a member. >> you're using your voice. >> you got to know about the h.u.d. thing. tell her about the h.u.d. thing. >> there was a hand-written note that sort of told you what to do in case of an emergency. they'll blow a horn, you stay inside your hut and don't come out until they blow the horn again. in case of fire, run outside and scream fire, fire, fire. [laughter] and we were laughing. like that's about the most logical thing i've ever read in my life. we were getting on the plane, coming back and laughing about it. you sort of feel like you want to go everywhere across the united states and across england and across egypt and everywhere, and go fire, fire, fire. it's the most logical thing.

>> a final question from me. you mentioned the eastern congo. five or six million people have died in the past six or seven years. so why not congo? why sudan? just because this is a moment where you can make a difference in sudan and will you roam on to something else afterwards once we've established it? >> i think we've been working on it. we've worked on this together. they're the two biggest human rights and humantarian crises in the world. there is a moment now in sudan that is a decisive moment that could potentially with the proper diplomatic intervention prevent the loss of millions of lives. it's urgent. congo bleeds on. we're going together soon.

we're going to keep working on that. >> it was fantastic. >> he's been there, he's done that. >> we're going to open up this to members. i'm going to call on you mostly at random. i need to tell you to speak into the mic, right into the microphone. speak directly into it. and if you want to ask a question, i'm going to take one at a time, so please say your name and who you're affiliated with. don't ask a question that's already been asked. and don't make a statement. and finally, be very concise, because i will interfein to make sure we get as many questions in as possible. >> and i learned the secret handshake. [laughter] >> thank you. my name is barbara slate. i'm an independent journalist. john, nice to see you. mr. clooney, nice to see you. >> and i'm not mr. prendergast?

i'm tired of this, for the record. >> i've only seen mr. clooney on the screen before, so he's mr. clooney. what are the chinese up to? because the united states, we give money, but the trade relationship the u.s., as my grandmother would say, butkus. the chinese are the ones who really hole the strings in terms of oil. so are you trying to convince them to do something? it would seem that they have the most to lose of foreign powers if this goes down badly. >> i made trips to china. john's been there plenty of times. you can't really shame them into it. and they're a pretty big country with big needs and they need oil. and there's a lot of oil there right now. the third-largest oil supplier out of africa. so it's a big number. and you can go there and get chinese workers to back the trucks going all through south

sudan. it's a big issue. but rather than -- the tact of trying to say shame on you guys for not paying attention to humanitarian issues hasn't been very effective. you don't leave people a way to win. i always find in any negotiation i've ever been in, you got to find a way to let somebody say i got something. the answer seems to me to be when we go to -- when you're sitting there with the people who have been attacked just les than two years ago and killed, massacred, the bhole time. -- the whole town. their answer would be, well, we're about 10 kilometers from a bunch of oil wells. and this will be nigeria. and, you know, these aren't going to be conventional wars. and the south is armed. remember this is a very different time than it was seven or eight years ago. the south has some tanks and

they've got planes. and this is going to be much bloodier and much more hardcore. and they're going to go after oil wells, chinese oil wells, and so they don't want to interrupt the flow of oil. you could say that to the egyptians as well with the water rights. water flowing north. they have a vested interest in not having a war. truly a vested interest. so rather than going to them and saying shame on you, you're doing poorly. you know, we need to have, again, robust diplome -- diplomacy saying you guys are in a real mess in terms of oil flow. so get involved. >> it's such a diplomatic, low-hang fruit. there's just so much, even though we come at it so differently, the united states and china, we have the exact same interest in seeing stability in the south.

i can't quite comprehend why we haven't been -- the united states hasn't been much more forward-leaning, with all the disputes and issues that divide beijing and washington these days, not to send a senior envoy with a very positive message, to say let's work on this together, let's go back together and make sure that in support of the immediate yage, china and the united states, the two countries in the world that have the most influence in sudan, can bring different forms of influence, whether it's the good cop, bad cop, whatever the scenario is, let's work together on that. in our times, we've both gone to the security council and addressed them and told the chinese very directly about the implications of non-involvement on this one. that the first targets are going to be the chinese oil installations. the chinese aren't stupid.

they can fight a conventional war and get bludgeoned. the whole south will be destroyed. or they can fight an a symmetrical war. which one are they going to be? they know what they're going to do. so china, it's a long learning curve, because they have sources of information on the ground, the diplomats are cartoon are not telling them that. again, late, but not too late. we ought to be sending a senior team, somebody in that hemisphere in that stratosphere to beijing to talk about how we can work on this. >> way in the back. >> i would like to know how you would characterize the response

of the international community to the european, and if you have any specific response from latin america. >> we know that the international reresponse has been tepid. the united states has pulled off pretty much all of the sanctions we have. you know, we're running out of a lot of sticks. the people are still doing business. bashir is buying them with british pounds and with euro, and, you know, the international community can be looking for those funds and freezing them. it's another policy step you could be doing, to truly say, you guys want to play, it's going to be a much smaller playground for you every day.

so the international community has not stepped up enough. it continues to make it a priority. that's our job. in latin america, what do you know? >> i believe it was costa rica, in which the issue of the referral of sudan to the case of darfur to the international criminal court was taken up. now, what you get from the u.s. diplomats and british diplomats, oh, we knlt do anything in the security council because of the chinese and the russians. the costa ricans painstakingly -- oh, god, i hope this is true. they cobbled together an absolute majority in the

council, neutralized the chinese , believe it or not, and got the united states to shift its vote, even though it's in opposition to the previous administration to a neutral one, and was able to -- they were able to push the case of darfur to the i.c.c. it's an example at times and no consult being from latin america. want to stiffen the spines of the united nations to keep accountability in the mix. we can walk around all day and talk about peace and can't everybody just get along. but at some point, there has to be breaking the cycle of impunity in sudan. people have to respond to these crimes against humanity that have been committed. and so the latin americas i think have been very, very positive in that particular

aspect. >> if it's not a true story, they have a chance to make it true. right there in the middle. other side. er >> i'm howard from the center for international studies. having an election for independence in the south in a context of almost total lack of institutions in the south is a formula for disaster. it's also a formula for a failed state. of course, we all know that institutions are going to take 50 or 100 years to develop, so how do you two see this developing over time?

is it going to call for a 50-year occupation for us or the u.n.? how do you see this developing over the long-term, once presumably some diplomatic efforts are done to deal with the immediate situation? >> if you go back and look where the united states was, most of africa is now 50 or 60 years old as independent nation states. we're in the midst of an ethnic cleansing against the native american population. being fueled by a transatlantic slave trade. we hadn't even fought our civil war yet, which was one of the bloodiest in terms of the history of the world. you got to start somewhere. the sudanese people -- they are not going to be denied. that's going to happen. so what we need to do is figure out, ok, what are the especially institutions that are most

important to secure some level of stability and some level of authenticity, legitimacy for basic governing institutions? the united states by far and away is the biggest player in this. i think since the bush administration to the obama administration, there's been a bipartisan commitment on the part of congress to fund significant institution, building of programs that many african states at the time of independence in the 1950's and 191960's did not have the advantage of doing. you've still got the eethyopera area as a possibility. there's a lot of money to be made. this is not an insignificant factor. if they can figure out a way to

share that. they can figure out a way to stick the pylons in there. particularly, made a lot of comments about what they will do. got to actually have them come through now, because the border will be good for oil production. i think it's got a shot. it's going to muddle through and there's going to be terrible conflict. you're shaking your head like what does this n.g.i. know? but i've been going there for 25 years. the one thing that southern sudanese have is a very, very clear desire for freedom and for independence, and we get in the way of that, that's just going to be more warfare. let's get on with it. let's help support the state building enterprise that's going to occur.

>> hi, sarah with senator feingold. you talked a little bit about some of the incentives and suggestions that you had for u.s. policy. i'd be interested to hear your suggestions for some of the key regional actors. you mentioned e egypt, chad, uganda. if you might speak a little bit to those countries and what role they can play in the next 89, 90 days, but then also after the referendum. >> it's such a dynamic -- >> you're smarter than i am. >> egypt, we talked about that before. egypt in particular, we went to egypt and met with eventually -- this was on the darfur issue.

but, you know, egypt is not jumping to get in on this. they're not hoping to save all these problems. but the truth of the matter is, you know, they're growing. and they're at the very end of the nile pipeline. and they're starting to lose water. water is becoming an issue. they're going to have some negotiating to do to make sure they get it. and that gives south sudans some leverage. and i think that that's -- that's a place that -- if you were to ask most of the experts that we've talked to where the best places is to go where the most leverage is, it's first china, of course, and the second place is egypt in terms of regional. it's hard to do. they're having their own problems obviously. >> the first two targets of the

spla, the southern army, were chevrons, oil installations, which they successfully drove chevron out right away. and the second target was this crazy -- i think at the time, somebody correct me, the largest machine in the world. largest machine in the world was digging a canal, which john grain wrote his dissertation on it. and it was an attempt at the time by sudan to create this canal that would pull some of the waters that lie stagnant in the swamp in southern sudan, wasted hydro electricity and irrigation in egypt, having it just sit there in sudan. the canal was going to drive that water northward into egypt.

egypt's interest in the long run is some kind of an arrangeth in southern sudan that can recreate that northward -- that increased north wad flow of the -- northward flow of the land. their 20-year plan completely depends on massively increased flow of water, which in fact is going the other way. ethiopia and rwanda and kenya and tanzania, everybody else south of egypt wants to use this water, and the ethiopians particularly are building huge irrigation schemes. so egypt's chance is to a way to cut a deal with the people who are living in that place, whether it's the united sudan or southern sudan, so that they can recreate this economic lifeline, which the canal will represent. they'll find that machine,

rebuild it. i think egypt is a major player, sarah, and ethiopia -- you know, behind the scenes in these negotiations if they succeed or fail. he's the one that has the most contact with both parties. some have contact with one, some have contact with the other. he has both. i think museveny will play a role. so those are the countries that matter. those are the countries that the united states has to be putting full court press on now to ensure that we're all going in the same direction. >> hi, my name is reba ca ruth. i'm an independent scholar. i'd like to commend the panel for the work that they're doing. very quickly, i'd just like to ask you, do you think it would be good for the united states to

reaffirm its leadership with its core principle of the unity of peoples and equality of peoples and build the capacity building for the government, the emerging government, and the nation of sudan around that? because that way, the trust of the united states to be able to deliver, not just hope, but a vision that can be embraced by the sudanese people can be built. i think that's the key here. i think what you're saying is really the key to all of this. the black sudanese people are indigenous people to this area. the problem with them is that they have resources that they have never had ownership of. so it's a bigger issue. it's a slavery issue. it's a race and ethnic relations issue.

and i think going forward, america has tools. not just on the market side. not just on the policy and government-building side, but on the unity of peoples reconciliation and the integration of nation's side. can you speak a little bit more to that? both of you, actually. >> it's a tricky thing. what you have to try to do in this negotiation is you have to try to separate yourself from some of those situations. people have been living across borders for a long time now. it's not as simple as christian and muslim. there is some absolute truth in the fact that you will see the people there -- you know, nobody gave a damn about that area until they found the oil. the truth is, they would come down and let their -- their cattle would graze. >> they're a know madic people. >> no one cared. they all get in fights every

once in a while. but it wasn't a big deal. it has become, you know, a rather big deal. and it has come a rather big deal because there's oil. when you talk to these people people who were killed two years ago, the families whose lives were ruined two years ago. they believe, and this is a very big part of it, that they say, who put this oil in the ground? god. god gave it to us as a gift because of how much we've suffered and it's ours. they believe that very strongly. so that's why the negotiations are going to be very difficult. they're saying, no, we're not shareing any of it. this is our land and we're not sharing any of it. that's why i keep going back to the idea. when we talk about robust negotiation, it means getting people in going, i get it. and it means people -- listen, it means at some point, bringing in people they trust from the last agreement.

senator danceworth, co lynn powell. i don't want to undercut the general at all, but at some point, they trust those guys. they say, listen, let's just work this out so we can have peace. you'd have a better shot. so it's a very complicated issue. again, you're right, but to deal with it in terms of race and religion puts us in a very sort of complex and much more difficult place to ever solve. than just saying let's work on it from these borders that for some reason were established 56 years ago. i find that to be part of the trouble. >> the only footnote i would add is there's one way to conquer the unifying vision is in the form of these negotiations that

are supposed to be occurring now. this is the race, you know, whether diplomacy will overcome -- but these negotiations in terms of the relationship between the north and the south, once the south is an independent state, which it will be one way or the other. and so that is a place where -- you know, how security arrangements are met. how they deal with all the complicated issues of banking. 20% of the people in the north and the south depend in some way, shape, or form on the border, which it's what george is talking about, or labor, or it's cross-the-border trade. that's one of every five people in sudan affected by that border. so having some kind of a vision about how they work together in the future is going to be key. these negotiations that are going to be ongoing, that we're

arguing ought to be reinforced with our level support. >> the south african president. >> i forgot, sorry. you're doing good. you're a good chair. i think that's the place where we can do it. >> i'm with nbc television. good to see you again, john. >> [inaudible] >> i've known him for a long time. >> but you could have said mr. prendergast. >> and to mr. clooney as well. as you know they have acknowledged that.

-- the negotiation collapse. do you think the referendum can take this with the a.b.a., considering the time period we're talking about? 90 days. also, if i might add, you might be aware that the arab league issued a statement talking about supporting the y deal referendum, but -- it's going to be a bad example. are you worried about interference from neighboring states, despite the incentives that you talked about? >> i hate two-part questions. >> actually, that was a three-parter. >> do you remember anything? >> the first one was about can you have a peace referendum ignoring his power. i think somewhere along the way, it's going to have to be something. some of this is probably going to be delayed. i mean, if there's anybody here

who doesn't understand it, there's two referendums. there's a referendum from the north and south and a very specific vote at the same time, the same day, which is contended border where all the oil is. >> for now, you have, for example, a soft order. >> talking about the demilitarized zone in the middle and certain targeted areas. again, those are all things that can be negotiated. and you have to try. when you say the talks broke down, i've never seen a negotiation in anything. and listen, i had to negotiate with warner brothers. talks break down. they broke down this time because they were starting to agree on a border, but they started to disagree more and more and who's allowed to vote. ok, well, then bring in the next group. bring in a bigger, more robust group in. let's go again. just keep going. what we are sure of is that

having talked to the president today, that he wasn't disheartened by the news that the talks had broken down, because he believes that by next week they can be back up and talking again. and i think -- listen, none of us are right. we're not going to figure it out. if it works out and they get a peaceful border and everybody in the north and south -- it could end up being a failed state. yeah, probably, could happen. i don't know i don't know. if we sit back and do nothing at this point and just turn our backs and walk away, there's a very good possibility that half a million -- you know, half a million to a million to 100,000, pick your number, i don't care, innocent men, women, and children could die. so we have to start to deal as much as we can as fast as we can to try to help them first. first you put out the fire.

and then you go in and you start replacing the furniture. >> the only other thing i'll say, ann curry came with us on this trip and we all heard loudly and clearly from the people, they're voting on the ninth. if they don't vote on the ninth, they're going to declare, as the southerners if they get denied a vote, unilateral declaration of independence. they are going to join the south. and that's where they are. and it's very clear. there's no focus group needed. we got the word. and so -- so in other words, if your question is can you possibly have a referendum for the south but then not have one with no consequence, i think that what our message is, if there is any one, and you tell me if this is our bottom line, that at the end of the day, a grand bargain is going to have to be struck. a packaged deal is going to have to be struck, negotiate

negotiated. that involves the interest of all these different groups. and his status in some way, shape, or form is going to be part of that negotiation. and whether it actually has a referendum, which would be rather easy to hold, unlike the south, which is going to be a logistical nightmare. but if they actually agree on requirements, you could do it, from a technical perspective, without difficult yiss, not a technical issue, though. so there's going to be extreme difficulty. if there is -- so the bottom line for us is that he's part of the larger issues between the north and the south and that that has to be negotiated and it's clear from the people there that if you try to negotiate away their right to self-determination, there will be war. >> and again, when we say it's our view, that's two days in a row sitting with president

kiere, and having it say, if it's given away, that's war. period. so there was no -- i said so that means that the south stands with avie. >> we wouldn't do this normally for other audiences, but there's one level of detail that's necessary. why is everybody making such a big deal about it? because the national congress is using it as a bargaining chip. so the longer they hold out on this issue and propose crazy ideas about who's going to be allowed to vote in that referendum, the more they win themselves in terms of possible flexibility or forcing flexibility on the part of the s.p. 11 on the border, where the border is. and other aspects of those arrangements that we talk about.

they're basically using it as a bargaining chip. besides bashir, we all know he was indicted by the i.c.c. there's all kinds of reports about militarizing some of these michigans that were the ones that were doing the slave trading in the 1980's and 90's. the history here, just watch out. and this is just a pool of gasoline waiting for a match to ignite it. >> alas, we are out of time. just say in 10 seconds each what the global public should be doing to help the policymakers see their way. >> well, i think the global public should be in any way they can, because this is a very -- it's a tricky time. first and foremost, getting a hold of it is the oldest thing in the world. but we set up things. we set up a sue

danactionnow.org. there's no ties to it. there's no money. it's just a way of getting directly to the white house through an e-mail, going we support in and every effort that you are willing to make to diplomatically put an end to this before it starts. we can set it up and, you know, for the new prime minister in england. we can set it up -- set them up everywhere. first and foremost, what we know is everybody wants to do something. there's nobody that doesn't want to help people. if it's not going to cost you anything, and you're not going to risk the lives of your own people. why not? of course you want to do the right thing. but, you know, there's senator lugar and there's senator kerry and they want to do the right thing. but what they need is political will. they need to be told not only that they want to do the right thing, but that they should do the right thing and that their con sitch when si wants them and commands them to do it. that is political will and every voice in if country and every

voice in europe. that wasn't 10 seconds, sorry. >> he took my time. i like it. people came for him and not me anyways, so let him have the last word. [laughter] >> i was the two-time sexiest man alive. [laughter] >> i want to remind -- [applause] >> thank you. thank you, thank you. i want to remind everybody that this has been on the record. you got your marching orders. and john, generous soul, has donateed copies of his new book "the enough moment: fighting to end africa's worst human rights crimes." you can pick one up on your way out. thank you all, and thank you very much. >> thank you so much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by [captioning performed by national captioning institute]